Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
DAS

2012 American Presidential Election

Cast your vote  

84 members have voted

  1. 1. Who are you for?

    • Obama (US Citizen)
      25
    • Romney (US Citizen)
      25
    • Other Candidate (US Citizen)
      8
    • Not Voting (US Citizen)
      5
    • Obama (Non-US Citizen)
      15
    • Romney (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Other Candidate (Non-US Citizen)
      1
    • Don't Care (Non-US Citizen)
      4


Recommended Posts

I must state an observation as I believe it goes to the heart of the matter.

When I watched the RNC feed from Tampa all I saw (from FOX, not MSNBC) was a crowd of old, white people...maybe a handful of other cultures but the VAST (98%) were white, no doubt.

The DNC however was both culturally diverse and the crowd itself electrified and motivated.

Bottom line: Like him or hate him Obama will win a second term unless he gets caught blowing Putin in the Dulles Airport bathroom stall. Again, just an observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must state an observation as I believe it goes to the heart of the matter.

When I watched the RNC feed from Tampa all I saw (from FOX, not MSNBC) was a crowd of old, white people...maybe a handful of other cultures but the VAST (98%) were white, no doubt.

The DNC however was both culturally diverse and the crowd itself electrified and motivated.

Bottom line: Like him or hate him Obama will win a second term unless he gets caught blowing Putin in the Dulles Airport bathroom stall. Again, just an observation.

If you were watching the speakers you wouldn't say the Democrat convention is more diverse. And if this country elects a President based on who has better speeches and puts on a better show for the second time in four years it would be a sad commentary.

I'll also add that it's not surprising that the democrat convention might look more diverse in the audience as their strategy is to cater and pander to special interest groups, including gays, Latinos, youth, etc., in an effort to build enough of a coalition to win. Worked for them in '08.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DNC however was culturally diverse

culturally diverse yet intellectually devoid...........

or can you really judge a book by it's cover?............

spose we're all just one big happy family anyways......................

b6a37bd9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must state an observation as I believe it goes to the heart of the matter.

When I watched the RNC feed from Tampa all I saw (from FOX, not MSNBC) was a crowd of old, white people...maybe a handful of other cultures but the VAST (98%) were white, no doubt.

The DNC however was both culturally diverse and the crowd itself electrified and motivated.

Bottom line: Like him or hate him Obama will win a second term unless he gets caught blowing Putin in the Dulles Airport bathroom stall. Again, just an observation.

What do you expect? Barry is culturally diverse. Besides, he is the first President to win an election having lost with the white voters (McCain got more white votes). Minorities typically align themselves with the Donkey party, so do weirdos. Of course they are gonna be more electrified. I fail to see why, though. For all his promises, Barry is only batting 37% and has had a Democratically controlled House and Senate the majority of time in office (2 for the House and 3 with the Senate).

Speaking of all those GOP policies that they like to complain about, from 1945 to 2009 (79th to 111th Congress); the Dems have controlled 26 of 33 of the House and 23 of 33 for the Senate. They were every bit a part of the problem, if not more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bottom line: Like him or hate him Obama will win a second term unless he gets caught blowing Putin in the Dulles Airport bathroom stall.

That's practically what the microphone caught during the meeting when Obama asked Medvedev to wait until he's re-elected and has more "flexibility" (i.e., no political liability/accountability)?

http://thelede.blogs...-with-medvedev/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line: Like him or hate him Obama will win a second term unless he gets caught blowing Putin in the Dulles Airport bathroom stall. Again, just an observation.

I'd think that would increase his popularity with liberals since they like commies, foreign governments and homosexuality. It would be the ultimate pandering to one's own base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could any of you possibly vote for Romney/Ryan when Mitt believes that homosexuality is a sin and Paul believes that a rapist should have legal parental privileges over the product of their crime?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could any of you possibly vote for Romney/Ryan when Mitt believes that homosexuality is a sin and Paul believes that a rapist should have legal parental privileges over the product of their crime?!

You might as well be speaking to the wall.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could any of you possibly vote for Romney/Ryan when Mitt believes that homosexuality is a sin

A lot of Americans think the same thing.

It's not a voting issue for me.

Voting based on a candidate's personal feelings about homosexuality is as silly as the idea in another thread of voting because of a candidate's taste in music.

Paul believes that a rapist should have legal parental privileges over the product of their crime

That's absolutely untrue and the most despicable form of rhetoric.

Because he sponsored a bill "protecting the sanctity of life", critics extrapolate potential scenarios that could occur under such legislation, no matter how remote the possibility.

But that extrapolation does not equate to "Paul Ryan believes this particular end result".

That's the biggest problem with the political views in this country - boiling things down to ridiculous extremes and then assigning them to those you disagree with.

Edited by TypeO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of Americans think the same thing.

It's not a voting issue for me.

Voting based on a candidate's personal feelings about homosexuality is as silly as the idea in another thread of voting because of a candidate's taste in music.

That's absolutely untrue and the most despicable form of rhetoric.

Because he sponsored a bill "protecting the sanctity of life", critics extrapolate potential scenarios that could occur under such legislation, no matter how remote the possibility.

But that extrapolation does not equate to "Paul Ryan believes this particular end result".

That's the biggest problem with the political views in this country - boiling things down to ridiculous extremes and then assigning them to those you disagree with.

Romney would be willing to make gay marriage illegal; I don't want a president who is so closed minded. He would also be willing to sign a bill to make sure that contraceptives such as birth control WOULD NOT be covered by Medicare. That severely impacts the female community. It's not a petty issue, it's something that could really change America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could any of you possibly vote for Romney/Ryan when Mitt believes that homosexuality is a sin

So basically how could anyone be on the right socially?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically how could anyone be on the right socially?

By being an open-minded person who believes in equality in gender, sexuality, and race? Like Obama?

Edited by jayceeporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney would be willing to make gay marriage illegal; I don't want a president who is so closed minded. He would also be willing to sign a bill to make sure that contraceptives such as birth control WOULD NOT be covered by Medicare. That severely impacts the female community. It's not a petty issue, it's something that could really change America.

Sounds like you and all the people you know are doing swell since gay marriage and birth control are the issues you brought up. Gay marriage is a non issue for me, but why should birth control be covered by Medicare? Why should the female community be given preferential treatment over the male community? Plenty of men fork out money for condoms and don't turn around and ask for a handout. Having children (or not having children) is a personal decision and a responsibility for the people involved. The government shouldn't subsidize that responsibility.

In the grand scheme of things, these two issues shouldn't be the priority. We gave Obama a chance and he failed. Simple as that. Time for someone new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney would be willing to make gay marriage illegal

The President doesn't have the power to make gay marriage - or anything else, for that matter - illegal.

I don't want a president who is so closed minded.

Since we're discussing personal "wants", I don't want a President who is so close-minded as to enact legislation that forces everyone to abide by his personal views on any particular subject, be it birth control, abortion, or whatever.

Obama is that President.

He would also be willing to sign a bill to make sure that contraceptives such as birth control WOULD NOT be covered by Medicare. That severely impacts the female community. It's not a petty issue, it's something that could really change America.

Such a bill would have to be voted on and placed before him.

God forbid Sandra Fluke or anyone else would have to spend $9 a month of their own money for birth control.

The bottom line is, your personal priorities about what is important in this election do not reflect the majority of Americans' priorities.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are concerned first and foremost with our economy, the deficit, jobs and unemployment.

The Democrats would have us believe it's more of the issues that are so near and dear to your heart, which is obviously why you're so enamored of President Obama.

They want us to believe that because Obama has done such a miserable job on the issues that I listed.

Obama ignored the economy while campaigning furiously to pass his healthcare policies.

In so doing, he placed his personal, partisan agenda ahead of the nation's welfare, in the process creating an even larger deficit for us to repay.

If he had made the economy his primary focus, we wouldn't be in half the mess we're in now.

In 2008, he campaigned on what a critical mess our economy was facing, and then promptly went into pushing healthcare full-swing for his first 2 years in office (while he still had a super-majority).

Politics ahead of our nation's best interests.

And now we're supposed to give him another term to fix what he ignored in his first term?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ What's the saying, Rome wasn't built in a day? You can't fix that broken of an economy over night.

Women paying $9 for birth control, are you kidding me? Don't know what plan you're referring to, but I'd like for my wife to be able to pay that little with the plan she has. Which, btw, has at least lowered from $50 a month (with a self-purchased plan) to now only $20 month (with a company provided plan).

Maybe a president can't legislate their own personal beliefs, but they certainly can put Supreme Court justices on the bench that can rule in that direction. So, yes it is a very valid thought process that needs to be considered when deciding to cast a vote for the office of President Of The United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney would be willing to make gay marriage illegal; I don't want a president who is so closed minded. He would also be willing to sign a bill to make sure that contraceptives such as birth control WOULD NOT be covered by Medicare. That severely impacts the female community. It's not a petty issue, it's something that could really change America.

Putting the improper use of the word "illegal" aside, you do realize that you voted for a guy in 2008 who believed that marriage "is between a man and a woman", right? And now you're asking how could anyone vote for someone who holds the same belief your candidate held in the last election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I come back to this thread after a week on vacation and WTF??? I have no issue with commentary and diversity of opinion, however can we all just stick to the facts and not degrade ourselves with derogatory rhetoric? And the thread on Clinton's speech...really, must we act in such mean spirited and condescending ways? In other words, "Can't we all just get along?"

BTW, I just read a bio on George Romney and I have to say Mitt is about as far away politically from his father as Stalin was from Churchill. I cannot believe they are father and son and furthermore, if George Romney was alive, 50 years younger and running today I would vote for him in a heartbeat. He was a truly great man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/150781/

OK, let me get this straight.

Muslim protesters lay siege to multiple US Embassies, killing an Ambassador and other Americans.

The administration blames a movie that may or may not exist beyond a 13 minute YouTube clip.

Meanwhile the media decides that Mitt Romney's response to the incident was more important to dissect than the incident itself.

Administration continues to blame YouTube video as situation at embassies unravels.

Then, over the weekend, a US citizen gets the literal midnight knock on the door, and is taken into custody - for making a YouTube video?

Most ominously of all, this morning, there are no reports whatsoever on Good Morning, America concerning anything related to the Embassy attacks, much less about the man taken into custody.

But what IS dominating the morning news?

A "foiled bomb plot" in Chicago.

"Folied bomb plot" would lead one to believe that somehow authorities learned of an attack and took action to stop, or "foil", the attack.

Instead, authorities provided a suspect with a fake bomb, and then arrested him when he parked a Jeep Cherokee containing the faux bomb in front of a heavily-populated nightclub in Chicago.

Chicago.

Fake bomb.

Chicago.

You can't make this stuff up.

Unless, of course, you're running the country.

And here's a thought...

If this poorly-made YouTube clip is so inflammatory, how much more so is Religulous, where Bill Maher mocks religion, including swipes at Islam, as well.

Why didn't THAT set off waves of violence?

And a final point...

Many of the Islamic attackers at the various embassies were holding signs referring to Osama Bin Laden.

I'm sure there's no way Team Obama's constant "spiking the football" over the killing of Bin Laden (Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!), nor the much-hyped movie on taking out Bin Laden - Zero Dark Thirty - for which the administration has provided massive support, would have anything to do with the embassy violence.

No way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type O my brother, let's be real here. The muslim world needs no excuse for going ape shit, a minority always does and until the countries of which they reside start to keep a leash on them and put their extremist asses in jail, we need to cut off all aid to these countries. In essence, when we give these countries aid it is nothing more than extortion. For once I agree with Rand Paul on this issue and completely disagree with that douche on MSNBC (some arab woman) who claimed we should continue aid to these backward countries, yet decries America for anti-muslim rage??? WTF is she smoking? Yes, we may have a few extreme people in this country who try and stir the shit pot with inflammatory rhetoric, but we sure don't have hundreds in the streets storming the Saudi embassy murdering the diplomatic staff. That is the difference between a "civilized" nation and a theocracy, civility breeds discourse, however ill directed whereas a theocracy allows zero dissent from the doctrine, all offenses punishable by death.

Fact is, we need to seriously and aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources (cold fusion, solar, etc), pull all troops and aid from the middle east and issue a simple statement: When you are ready to place humanity above the dogma of a 1400 year old religion and join the world community, respecting your fellow human, their beliefs, and freedom of expression, we will embrace you with open arms. Until then, piss off!

Edited by Sagittarius Rising

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Type O my brother, let's be real here. The muslim world needs no excuse for going ape shit, a minority always does and until the countries of which they reside start to keep a leash on them and put their extremist asses in jail, we need to cut off all aid to these countries. In essence, when we give these countries aid it is nothing more than extortion. For once I agree with Rand Paul on this issue and completely disagree with that douche on MSNBC (some arab woman) who claimed we should continue aid to these backward countries, yet decries America for anti-muslim rage??? WTF is she smoking? Yes, we may have a few extreme people in this country who try and stir the shit pot with inflammatory rhetoric, but we sure don't have hundreds in the streets storming the Saudi embassy murdering the diplomatic staff. That is the difference between a "civilized" nation and a theocracy, civility breeds discourse, however ill directed whereas a theocracy allows zero dissent from the doctrine, all offenses punishable by death.

Fact is, we need to seriously and aggressively pursue alternative fuel sources (cold fusion, solar, etc), pull all troops and aid from the middle east and issue a simple statement: When you are ready to place humanity above the dogma of a 1400 year old religion and join the world community, respecting your fellow human, their beliefs, and freedom of expression, we will embrace you with open arms. Until then, piss off!

Well-said.

For the most part, the rest of the world and its religions have gone through a renaissance, and in so doing, entered the modern world.

Islam has yet to do so.

It is up to Islam to monitor itself.

Those Muslims who say it's just the extremists must be very vocal in decrying and denouncing the ACTS committed.

It's not enough to simply say (as they often do) "Islam is a religion of peace".

They need to speak out loudly, in large groups, and get their house in order.

It's not the rest of the world's responsibility to worry about Islam's failure to be civilized.

I think Islam should be placed on notice, and Mecca should be the warning.

Denounce and take whatever action is necessary to separate the violent extremists from those who represent a religion of peace, or we blow up Mecca.

Shocking?

So what?

The Taliban (Muslims) destroyed/blew up ancient religious shrines in Afghanistan as they were taking control.

They have no problem destroying and desecrating other cultures' and religions' holy shrines and artifacts.

So they should be subject to the same consequences.

And if it becomes necessary to bomb Mecca, they have no one to blame but themselves for tolerating such widespread violence and savagery among their own.

Good thing I'm not in charge, amirite? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Romney's still ahead in this poll?

I'm thinking the 'Silent Majority' will speak loudly in November.

We'll see. :^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right. Democrats always look better before election day because media libs are the loudest people on planet earth. However, I'm still waiting for the boost in the polls for the Dem when the death photos of Bin Laden "accidentally" get leaked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...